What Girls Said 1

Interesting idea, however I fail to see how that would make a business more competitive and turn a higher profit.

0

0|0

0|0

Asker

1. you don't pay CEOs huge salaries.2. you don't pay shareholders as there are no shareholders.3. you can invest money back in the business instead of personal jets for bosses that will :a) make work easier and worktime lessb) earn more for same workc) pollute less teh environment

Well in a point the owner of the business have the "right".But form him to find people to "work with" and "lead" to prove benefit bot 1-the business (profit) and 2-the world (product and environment) those people need to be convinced about the decision and the decision maker. Or they will be just either:A- Irresponsible and do not have clear goals in life, and that is why they need a BOSS not a leader.B- Cornered by life and need the money just for money which is why they are FORCED to be bossed around.

All I am saying is that you should IMPROVE your self and search for opportunities so to avoid the BOSSES and find a good LEADER or just BE A LEADER.

Well, I would presume a CEO would have knowledge of marketing, business, taxation, and legal matters relating to the company, and the lawyers he hires for such things if needs be, and actually know how to read things like financial statements and do equations like cash discounts, trade discounts, and work with profit margins, break-even points, returns on equity, and even more complex things like knowing of economic tides and trends. And that's just for the bachelor's degree.

I'm rather certain someone who works at the bottom runs of a factor has little knowledge of this in general. So just as the guy who works on his machine should be left to his machine the guy who works with the numbers probably knows more about them than the guy who works on the machine.

The question then becomes input and output. How much input and training is required to run the machine? Mind you Tax Law never ends, it's constant training, constant reading, constant upkeep, and constant learning so if anything who is more replaceable? It isn't that employees aren't important, and perhaps they should do what some smaller companies do and simply divide all profits as bonus but beyond that it is hard to argue for a democratic say when it's a technocratic set-up.

This is why democracy in politics is a complete mess. It asks people who don't study various things to decide quite literally at times how others in their society should be treated. Imagine living in a world where people voted that you couldn't get married to whom you wished, and you say "Gay marriage!" but I actually am referring to segregation, and before that even the class wars, and thus it is so that time and time again mankind has voted solely for his comfort with no consideration for the rights of his fellow man.

Who is to say that those who are at the bottom are truly intelligent enough to run the corporation or qualified? They vote out their president and CEO for someone who makes sweet promises and then scams them and runs the company into the ground while making exuberant amounts of bonus money. And the thing is that this isn't illegal. It happens all the time; people buy companies, burn them out, and reinvest their "profits". What is your safeguard? Don't say Unions.

"Who is to say that those who are at the bottom are truly intelligent enough to run the corporation or qualified?"

Who is to say they aren't? :)

"They vote out their president and CEO for someone who makes sweet promises and then scams them and runs the company into the ground while making exuberant amounts of bonus money."

Then they fail as a company and lose their jobs and you are truly free to tell them "it is their fault", unlike now when it isn't.

"What is your safeguard?"

NO safeguard. It is a risk.You trade in lack of responsabillity ( *cough* republican motto *cough* ) for more decision power.Studies show people work HARDER and are more motivated when they work for their OWN interest. when they are INVESTED in the work and they are listened and appreciated.

Actually I don't hate democracy. I am just aware that many of the problems that would arise you've absolutely no answer for. If the democracy puts the workers at risk what good is the system? You've done nothing but get millions of people fired by greedy entrepreneurs and idiots who talk big but can't deliver.

You are thinking too small. A corporation with say over 3,000 employees may be far easier to persuade to hire on a scam artist than say a corporation of fewer than 50. The reality is that in a democracy even if 49% see the truth so long as 51% do not the vote holds and then who is at fault for the loss of over 1400 jobs? The implications of getting a president you don't like isn't equivalent to the implications of getting a CEO who completely restructures your company or drives it bankrupt and ends up firing the people who did not vote for him. Where are there reparations? Shall we call it "bad luck"?

Your system not only fails it doesn't even address this major concern. The CEOs of many companies today at current make bold promises such as a lack restructuring and then take over and there are waves of layoffs from the purchase or merger and just like that jobs are lost. Restructuring isn't cheap you know.

well are the owners representatives. The rest are tools of execution. can't work any other way. The owners reap the benefits. You can be an owner... just buy stock. The stock holders all vote at the stock holders meetings.

why do you need to buy loads? Food stamps? People who choose not to work and make others pay their bills... no... welfare is a shame in this country. We support an underclass that doesn't WANT to work. A safety net is ok... a way of life on welfare is not. My father came to this country and WORKED. People on welfare should too. I work.

Well it would be hard to work at WalMart and not have enough to eat. But, working is never lazy. That is what we do as people with value. Sucking on the welfare teat is not a value. I applaud people who choose to work.If you worked at wal mart, you could afford to buy their stock. It is a $72.56 a share this exact moment

People working at wallmart are the ones receiving food stamps - the one YOU pay for as a tax payer because the UNDEMOCRATIC decision taken by wallmart CEOs is to NOT pay the workers enough to even eat.Nevermind "buying stocks" !

Well... lets just leave it that a corporation is viewed as an individual and its shareholders are the neurons of the brain that decides what it will do. I hate the corporations that give so much of their wealth to the ceo's that the shareholders and the company as an entity have no reward for their efforts and ownership. ok?

interesting how the banking industry a few weeks ago admitted to felonies ( a bunch of them - all the big ones) and instead of anything being done they were fined a piddley amount (compared to the theft from the huge fraud that cost people Billions and billions). You would go to jail for stealing a slice of pizza. A corporation gets a slap on the wrist. (Of course the president's friend Warren Buffett owns one of the biggest - BAC)...

Create your own company if you feel this way but don't tell other what to do with their company. Buy a huge number of shares in a company and then make these demands. But you won't do either of those becaise, well as I said, you are stupid.

That's your opinion, buddy. Not everyone shares it.And calling those who disagree "stupid" is offensive. I suggest you keep quiet if you have nothing constructive to say or I will report your answer as spamming and offensive.